March 15
To R. Scott Clark and his article that goes out of its way to state that homosexual desire, like homosexual behavior, is sin. This appeared in Heidelblog
I fully agree with Dr Clark that homosexual desire is sin. But, according to Jesus, so too is lusting for a woman outside of a heterosexual marriage. So the question becomes whether Clark is putting an extra burden on Christians who battle homosexual desires that he is not that he is not putting on those battling heterosexual sinful desires.
We should note that Clark is not shy in citing Ursinus in saying that those with homosexual desires should be punished by the Civil Magistrates. So how dare young people think that what Clark and others say about homosexuality is hateful.
Clark makes a big deal about homosexual desire is against nature. But when we realize that we see varying levels of homosexuality in around 1,500 species, we have to ask: Whose nature is it against?
And Clark also quotes part of I Cor 6:11 to refer to the Christians who were homosexual of Paul's day: 'such were some of you.' But that passage deals with a number of sins in addition to homosexuality including adultery. Is Clark saying that believers with homosexual desires but did not act on them are not Christians? What about the other sins in I Cor 6 that were listed with homosexuality? Adultery is one such sin. Does that mean that Christians don't struggle with adulterous desires?
While Clark questions whether students know what Paul said in I Cor 6:11, we might ask if Clark has read Romans 2:1ff. For after listing sins that were the result of unbelief, Paul starts Romans 2:1 off with a serious warning against judging others. Who are those others? Aren't they the people whose sins were highlighted in Romans 1? And while Clark, in one of his responses, indicates, if not implies, that since homosexuality violates God's moral and biological laws, that they are worse sinners than those who do not violate biological law, Romans 3:9 begs to differ:
What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.
While Clark correctly says that homosexual students should be loved, again he cited Ursinus who said that those with such desires should be arrested. And he says that real Christians were such sinners. Clark needs to find other ways to state why homosexual desire is also sin without giving such mixed messages and putting burdens on homosexuals who would become Christians which he doesn't put on Christians who struggle with other sins.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 16
To Stephen Klugewicz and his article on some of the principles used to write The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
In giving accolades to the principles that drove the writing of The Constitution, Stephen Klugewicz fails to mention a more full context of the drafting of that document. The impetus for the drafting of that document was Shays Rebellion. That rebellion moved Henry Knox to write a letter to George Washington telling him something needs to be done before the American experiment failed.
The context of the rebellion revolved around the farmers who had served as soldiers in the Revolutionary War and were never compensated as promised for their service. This contributed to their economic hardships. In addition, taxes were high and businesses in Boston started to change so that payment was expected at the time of sale. This was a change from farmers using the barter system to pay off debts. There was no paper currency at the time which people could use to make payment. In addition, neither was there gold nor silver available to the farmers.
The term 'faction' was used more as a pejorative by America's new elite to describe those who were in need of some kind of relief so they could continue to survive economically. It was used by Henry Knox in his letter to George Washington and James Madison in Federalist #10, both of whom regarded the rebelling farmers as many today's conservatives regard BLM. What the faction wanted was a paper currency, the cancellation of debts, and an equal distribution of property. So on one hand, what the rebelling farmers wanted what they thought was needed for them to survive. What the elites wanted was protection for their current status.
What we see with The Constitution is a consolidation of federal powers in order to be able to put down rebellions. In addition, that document was written to protect America's new elites from popular opinion, as Yates's notes on the Constitutional debates records Madison as saying:
Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
What is more telling is what Madison feared if elections were open to call classes in England:
The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation.
Innovation, of course would include any changes to the current status quo.
One can also see the one of the main concerns in The Constitution when the references to the militia.
The short of all of this is is that the writing of The Constitution was not driven by principles as much as described in the above article. A significant part The Constitution was written in order to preserve the status of America's elite at that time.
No comments:
Post a Comment